Use of would in past tense

Question

I was writing a biography and my teacher (who is not an English teacher, he is a math teacher) made several marks on my paper for my use of "would". For example, I wrote,

"He would publish his first mathematical paper at the age of eighteen."

My teacher said I should have used published instead of would publish. He also said in class that since it is a biography that takes place in the past that this wasn't the correct use of past tense. I don't think he is right and I feel that this issue is more a stylistic difference. However, I am unsure as well so any help would be appreciated. I will put some more example below too.

1. me-> "One year later he went on to earn his Ph.D..."
   him-> should have been earned and I should've got rid of went on to

2. me-> "He would be associated with the project until 1955."
   him-> should have been was and not would be

3. me-> "Von Neumann would go on to write, "[boring qoute]"
   him-> should have been went and not would go

4. me-> "Between 1927-1930 Von Neumann would teach Mathematics at University of Berlin."
   him-> should have been taught and not would teach

Answer 1

You could write it the way you did as long as it is that tense throughout the biography. You are writing it in a style and tense that indicates you are telling events from a standpoint that you know are going to happen before they do, which is fine. In fact, it is good storytelling. The way your teacher prefers to write it is as if it is written from a factual stand point where it already happened, in a perhaps sequential order telling what happened first, then what happened next which makes sense also. So yes, in a way it is only a stylistic difference. As long as you choose one tense and stick with it throughout your biography, it is grammatically correct and makes sense.

Answer 2

You were right in your "would" grammar, but only providing you had previously established a feeling of some past scene, leading from which "would" served as the descriptor of a future event. (Example: Yesterday's movie was about a young guy who had lost his wife, and he then "would" want to re-marry some day, of course...)

Personally, I can understand your teacher, who just wanted a step-by-step account of past events. Excessive use of one type of construction/tense is not advisable, and is OK occasionally in order that your piece be more interesting. (Example: he did this, took that, finished something else but still "would" not go out).

Answer 3

The "would" past tense is correct only when describing events in the past, you want to BRIEFLY mention something that was also in the past, but happened later than the main events in the past you are describing. Sportscasters in the U.S. began using the "would" past tense all the time, and it got picked up by the general public for reasons I don't understand. Your teacher was right to correct you. The example above about the World Series is a correct use of the "would" past tense.

Answer 4

Your teacher is right. You're wrong. 'Would' is incorrect when describing events that took place in the past. It describes intent, not action that took place. It's passive writing style, which will get you low marks in advanced writing courses and in history. Read Strunk's The Elements of Style. Eliminate needless words that add nothing to your message. It's not, "You would go on to write your paper," or "your teacher went on to edit it." It's, "You wrote the paper," and "your teacher edited it."

I realize the need to load up the paper in order to achieve the assigned word count, but you do that by providing the reader with the necessary information, not with filler words that convey nothing of value. Hacker's Rules for Writers is another good source for tips on how to write more effectively.

Remember: in formal writing it pays to be concise, precise, informative, and especially unambiguous. Your teacher has been well taught, and is trying to teach you well. Take heed.